Giantaxe

No longer in CA, even with the high deductible of other western states. Since the mid '90's, you've had to purchase a separate policy through the California Earthquake Authority. A homeowners policy gives you the right to be offered earthquake insurance at each renewal, but the CA legislature stopped requiring insurers actually to provide earthquake insurance when they all threatened to bail the state after the Northridge quake. Cost can be 50%to100% of a typical homeowners policy and the deductible is, iirc, 25%. Plus the policy can be surcharged if the authority doesn't have enough reserves in the event of catastrophic claims. I think a few other specialist insurers have entered the market more recently, but the insurance is entirely separate from homeowners policies.

snowbunny

We have to dynamite if we want a swimming pool and basements are rare. We've got about six inches (if you're lucky) of the worst clay soil there is, then nearly solid rock.

I did wonder if solid brick vs brick facade walls would be better in some way. I have a fantasy of building another house someday. More like a case of masochism! We get enough rain (3" at a time, usually) to cause upheaval of said clay soil with the result being cracked concrete foundations. I want to do pier-and-beam in my fantasy house.

Pulaski

In some sense you are right, it is, but a lighter timber frame house both "floats" better as the ground moves under it, and it flexes and gives without suffering structural damage. And remember every tiny movement of the ground whther swelling, contracting, or shaken by earth tremors, is an opportunity for gravity to drag a house downward into the ground. The lighter the house the less force there is trying to pull the house downward.

That was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post - the ground might move, and the foundation crack, but a timber frame is much more forgiving (of ground/ foundation movement) than a house built from solid masonry.

Pulaski

I have been wondering exactly the same thing myself, although we are likely ten-twelve years away from building our dream home. I have been looking into various concrete and steel options - both traditional reinforced concrete (cast concrete with a core of steel rebar), and steel frame/ concrete slab floors. Both are common methods of constructing apartment building and offices, but less common for single family houses.

I am attracted to these, with a current preference for steel frame & slab floors, because:-
(i) rooms can be larger than for traditional timber frame construction
(ii) floor plans don't need to line up over each other floor over floor (walls are all curtain walls, not load bearing)
(iii) the structure is virtually fire proof, and is certainly termite proof
(iv) both exterior and interior walls can incorporate considerable insulation compared to a timber frame home - steel studwork does not simultaneously support the two faces of the wall (interior and exterior walls), significantly improving both the heat and sound insulation properties of the wall.

I have seen reports that say that some concrete homes require only half the size of heating/ AC unit of a timber framed home of the same size.

Our dream home also has at least one level of fully-below-ground basement, as well as a half-and-half floor (below ground at the front, but above ground at the rear), because of the slope of our lot downwards, away from the road

We have recently been considering the merits of digging an even deep foundation and putting a swimming pool and exercise room down there. In any case even the "original" plan, of one basement level and one half-and-half floor, should make for a fairly efficient home, needing less cooling in summer and less heating in winter.

So, that's the pipe dream, now we just need to scrape the money together!

snowbunny

If one doesn't have a basement, then is there still a preference for a slab floor? I like pier-and-beam because there ISN'T a slab to "crack" and the crawlspace means that things like gas and plumbing are easily accessible. I suppose it would be less energy efficient in the summer if air-conditioned, however.

Pulaski

Subject to code requirements I would go for plumbing and wiring in the ceiling of the lowest (basement) level - which is how my in-laws home in Virginia was built.

Other things being equal, which they rarely are, I too prefer a house on a crawl space because of the accessability of the utility lines. Of the eight houses I've bought, not one was built on a slab - all were built on crawl spaces, however I hear that building codes in the Carolinas and Georgia are changing, and that "traditional" (earth floor) crawl spaces are going to be banned, so most homes in future will likely be built on a slab.

snowbunny

Why would they change this?

scrubbedexpat099

Trying to remember, I know that it would not qualify you for the best rates for Home Insurance but forget the reason why.

Stupid thing is I remember asking....

Pulaski

Not sure, but I heard that it is to do with the life of the house. Someone things that an earth-floor crawl space is bad for the structure. Now I definitely disagree as I own several houses that are 70-80 years old that are right-as-rain. Sure it can get a little damp down there, especially after a storm, but aside from a few spiders and crickets not much goes on down there!

Giantaxe

Well, apart from wet and dry rot, particularly if the sub-space is not well ventilated.